Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2006-12-29Fr "� �._. �. Katie Moore - TEXT.htm Page 1 Here are my comments, concerns, questions, etc. after reviewing the Spring Canyon Park plans & TIS: TIS Transportation Planning staff wasn't contacted prior to TIS submittal to discuss Master Street Plan (MSP) changes/options. TIS should be amended to analyze the option of removing the future north/south street shown on the MSP west of the project site. The TIS recommends that this north/south street be a 2-lane arterial as currently shown on the MSP. Keeping this north/south street on the MSP, or removing it, is related to determining whether or not the segment of Horsetooth west of Taft Hill can be downgraded from the 4-lane arterial shown on the MSP to either a 2-lane arterial (that is what is recommended in the TIS) or a major collector (that is what is shown on the project utility plans). This difference needs to be resolved based on the findings in the revised TIS. Also, the TIS needs to better address ways to mitigate the cut-thru traffic in the neighborhood south of the site (particularly if the future north/south street is removed from the MSP). The TIS recommends downgrading Overland Trail south of Drake from a 4-lane arterial to collector street (either with or without parking). This seems reasonable given the revisions to the MSP revisions in recent years concerning Overland Trail. Also, the TIS recommends that Harmony/CR 38E be a 2-lane arterial west of Taft Hill. Currently, the MSP shows the segment west of Taft Hill as a 4-lane arterial transitioning to a collector near the intersection of the future north/south street. While this MSP change may be acceptable to Transportation staff, it was not included in the prior list of possible MSP changes we discussed for this project. Do we want to include this change as well as the others? Transportation staff would like to discuss whether or not to support these MSP changes from the TIS at this week's Transportation Coordination meeting. If these changes are ok, then they could be included in a future update process for the MSP and should not hold-up the project's approval process. Also, the TIS includes a finding that a roundabout at the intersection of Drake/Overland would work - is this supported by staff9 who would do it and when? Regarding the Ped LOS, the TIS did not address the street/ped crossing into the project site at the main entry on Horsetooth - this is necessary for the neighborhood to the south to get to the park site/entrance. The TIS omitted the adjacent neighborhoods that should have been included in the Bike LOS analysis and did not include reference to the existing on -street bikelanes on Drake, Overland, Taft Hill (existing north of Horsetooth and future City/County project south of Horsetooth). Also, it did not indicate whether or not there are - or will be - bikelanes on Horsetooth west of Taft to access the site. The Ped and Bike LOS sections should be amended along with the other revisions concerning the MSP. Site Plan: Need to show sidewalk along the north side of Horsetooth connecting to the existing sidewalk east of the park site. Need to show ped access ramps at the main entrance driveway/sidewalks. These comments are noted on sheet S 11 & S 12. Utility Plan: Horsetooth shown as a major collector ( 66' ROW) vs. TIS recommends it be a 2-lane arterial (84' ROW). This difference needs to be resolved. Possible options: 1. Remove future north/south street west of site from the MSP and see if classification of Horsetooth can be lowered to major collector and keep ROW at 66'. 2. Revise Horsetooth ROW to fit 2-lane arterial (84'). 3. Other "modified" 2-lane arterial or collector design ok'd through process that fits within desired ROW width. Lighting Plan: Will street lighting be added along Horsetooth adjacent to the park site (or is it existing today)? At a minimum, lighting should be provided at the main entrance to the park at Horsetooth and this lighting should cover the intersection (including the ped crossing). Statement of Planning Objectives: Section (vi) reads that "No variances are being requested" but there will be changes needed to the City's MSP - do the MSP changes fall in the category of a "variance" or are they considered differently? Katie Moore-' TEXT htm ... Page 3 Please let me know if you have any questions or responses to my questions on this. Hopefully we can discuss the MSP changes at this week's TC meeting and work through these items. Thanks, Kathleen P.S. I can't access DMS anymore (I feel like a dinosaur) so Katie or David, if you could enter my comments, that would be great. Thanks.